Winamp has announced that it is "opening up" its source code

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Licensing, “Opened Up” vs Open Source

  • Many are skeptical because the announcement avoids saying “open source” and provides no license details.
  • Some expect a restrictive “source-available” model; others note companies have done similar reference-source releases before.
  • Several point out Winamp uses third-party proprietary components (codecs, Gracenote, etc.), which complicates relicensing and may explain delays and vague language.
  • There is debate over what licenses would permit: some stress that even GPL would still let Winamp’s owner control the “official” version.

Nostalgia and Ongoing Usage

  • Multiple commenters still use classic Winamp daily, often v2.x or 5.66, praising its speed, low resource use, and focus on “just playing music” rather than being a library or streaming client.
  • Visualizations and especially skins are seen as iconic; people reminisce about making and downloading skins, and about spin‑off tools (e.g., Milkdrop-like visualizers).
  • Some personal stories describe Winamp skinning and plugin culture as career-influential and formative.

Alternatives and Clones

  • Popular alternatives mentioned: foobar2000, MusicBee, AIMP, QMMP, Audacious, XMMS/x11amp, WACUP (community Winamp fork), and WebAmp (in-browser clone).
  • Opinions differ: some see foobar2000 as Winamp’s true successor; others note its theming can’t replicate classic Winamp skins.
  • For Linux/macOS, people cite various Winamp-like players, Wine compatibility, and ongoing clones, but some argue there is still no perfect “non-bloatware” player.

Timing, Business Context, and Motivations

  • Many say the move is “20 years too late” and mostly nostalgic value remains.
  • Others argue it’s still worthwhile: the Windows desktop version is effectively abandoned as the company chases a streaming service, so letting the community maintain it is better than letting it die.
  • Some view this as a byproduct of financial distress; once the code has little commercial value, opening it becomes easier or at least less costly.

Desired Outcomes and Open Questions

  • People hope for: a clean 2.x codebase, ports to Linux/macOS/ARM, better visualizers, and tools to inspect/repair old libraries.
  • Whether the release will be fully FOSS, partly proprietary, or merely view-only remains unclear.